Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane Thread; (DDT)
Topic Started: Jun 19 2005, 09:08 PM (287 Views)
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
captain_proton_au
Jun 21 2005, 10:23 AM
somerled
Jun 21 2005, 10:06 AM

On the effectiveness of DDT in vector control - you might find it instructive to conduct a search on the development resistance of vectors to DDT , which has the result that DDT is no longer as effective at vector control as it was in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s because the vectors have evolved resistance to DDT.

Prove it

I refer you to Noah's links on the matter. (and note you've looked).

Again this is common knowledge , at least amongst those of us who have bothered to follow this over the years.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Prove it
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
captain_proton_au
Jun 21 2005, 10:36 AM
Dr. Noah
Jun 21 2005, 10:25 AM

Errr, well that last link seems to support the case for DDT use.


And the first two only talk about extended exposure to DDT

This is what you invariably get as DDT and it's derivatives (on breaking down) are very environmentally persistant. The stuff hangs about in the water, the soil for many years. Aromatics are generally very durable in the environment.

The vectors are therefore exposed to it over long periods and so have evolved considerable resistance to DDT greatly reducing DDT's effectiveness.

It is this environmental persistance and it's biological effects that were DDT's undoing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Similarly, PCBs have been found in the fat of polar bears thousands of miles from anywhere where they would be used. It's a persistent chemical that doesn't break down and actually accumulates toxicity in living things.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Dont sidestep (Somerled)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
captain_proton_au
Jun 21 2005, 10:37 AM
Prove it

How do you prove something is common knowledge ? :rolleyes: (without a statistically valid sample poll of the community).

Can you prove it is not common knowledge amongst informed lay people ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

You're sidestepping again.



Provide one itsy bitsy little paragraph from a reputable source that says DDT is now useless as an insecticide.


Do not provide a link to a page that says DDT is less effective with overuse or mismanagement


Do not provide a link to a 10,000 page essay where only one paragraph is relevant, quote said paragraph instead


Do not provide a link and say it proves your point, when it in fact it says something completely different.


One little paragraph will do it
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
http://www.budsir.org/Toward/2_religion_6.htm

Then there was the case of DDT. At that time it was thought that with DDT, our problems with the insect world were over – ants, mosquitoes ... all gone. We thought we could eradicate these creatures and no longer have to be bothered by them. Many years later it was found that DDT was carcinogenic, an insidious substance which could prove fatal even to humans. What's more, while the humans were suffering ill effects from the drug, the insect population was becoming immune to it. In time it became useless as an insecticide, and was more likely to kill the human beings. Many countries have banned the use of DDT, but Thailand is still using it, even now.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Buddhist scriptures information retrieval - seriously?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Hey, you weren't specific. You just asked for a paragraph stating DDT is useless now. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

To which I retort from a more credible source

Quote:
 
DDT was first introduced for a malaria control trial in Chiangmai Province. The Malaria epidemic in 1951 was very serious and killed over 40,000 Thai people at a mortality rate of 200/100,000. DDT has been widely applied at rate of 2 gm-a.i. / m2 ever since. It proved capable of decreasing the mortality rate each year until it reached 1/100,000 in 1993.


Link
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
With all due respect, and I do mean that, I am done with the my source is better than your source fights. You asked, I provided. I got nothing to prove here.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

May the source be with you ;)

Actually, I dont think we were in disagreement, you were mainly pointing out that DDT is nasty, which is true, I was mainly responding to Spongebath who I think was claiming DDT was useless, actually I'm not sure what he was claiming, he kept changing his mind.


DDT is nasty, but the whole point of this thread was that its use is far less nasty than not using it, well in terms of no. of deaths anyway
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I wouldn't say it's useless, but I would say that the drawbacks certainly outweigh the benefits, and it is true that there are a number of species that have developed immunity to it, so in that sense it is useless against them.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Science and Technology · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus